Two Treatises of Government and Human Right Concept - Essay Example

HOW DO THE TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT AFFECT THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHT IN MODERN SOCIETY? due: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Discussion on two philosophies 3 Thomas Hobbes 3 John Locke 4 The most convincing theory 5 Human rights 7 How the human rights perform their role in modern society 10 Conclusion 11 Bibliography 13 Introduction This paper will elaborate on how the two treatises of government affect the human right concept in the modern world society. A lingering question is ‘are human beings born with natural rights to property, life and liberty, and do they institute the state to protect these rights?’ The paper will discuss various philosophers and what they thought about government. In addition, it will begin with the historical aspect of how different philosophies described human integrity and how the contemporary community views the concept of human right. I will start with a discussion on two philosophers and compare their philosophies. Secondly, I will state the philosophy that is most convincing and lastly, I will make a conclusion. Discussion on two philosophies Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes one of the seventeenth-century English philosopher believed that absolutism is the most logical and desirable structure of government (Perry, Chase, Jacob, J., Jacob, M., & Von Laue 2012:250). This kind of thinking was motivated by the experience of the pains of the English Civil war and witnessed the execution of Charles I in 1649. He accentuated that the unlimited power of the sovereign is the only way to suppress the human passions that damage the social order and terrorise civilized life. He suggests that for people to pursue their personal interests there is need for a secure environment that is provided by an absolute rule (Perry, Chase, Jacob, J., Jacob, M., & Von Laue 2012:250). Hobbes dismissed the authority of religion and tradition and viewed them as not compatible with the political science hence build his political philosophy on a scientific base. In his quest for absolutism he never considered God as the giver of monarch’s power nor was the state under the command of a higher spiritual dominion and its proposition that when a state disobeys God’s law its commands should not be implemented. Hobbes viewed human as grasping and selfish and proposed that human relations are preserved through rivalry and dispute and not through collaboration. Hobbes describes human behaviour as one that is dominated by passion instead of reason. He recommended governance that limits power as the only method of securing human from each other and preserve the life of the civilised (Perry, Chase, Jacob, J., Jacob, M., & Von Laue 2012:251). John Locke On the other hand, John Locke viewed human beings as rational in nature and controlled by a feeling of moral responsibility. He believes that people are in a position to respect the deep-rooted nobility of other people and limit their selfishness. He viewed individuals as humane and good that led into the development of government that is different from Hobbe’s philosophy. In his book of 1690 Two Treatises of Government he writes that people come into the world with innate rights to liberty, life and property and the established governments are supposed to secure the rights (Locke, J., & Locke, J. 2005:6). He proposed that the legislature, the executive, the assembly and the king have no power to deny people of their inherent rights. Locke embraced the constitutional government where the authority to rule comes from the approval of the citizens, and the land’s power is restricted by contract. People in power govern under law and if not they lose their moral to rule. Therefore, if a government does not act according to the contract on which it is established; which is to safeguard property, life and liberty, the citizens have a right to terminate it (Perry, Chase, Jacob, J., Jacob, M., & Von Laue 2012:251). The two philosophers agree that the government’s responsibility is to guarantee well-being, peace and security of its people. The difference is in the way of reaching this end. Locke recommends that the social welfare should consist of individual freedom. He contradicted Hobbe’s perspective of absolute power to solve the shortcomings of nature of governance. Locke advocates for resistance to arbitrary power, protection of basic rights, the rule of law and the case for restricted government. He believes that the political life can be directed by rational principles, and people have the ability to freedom and cognition. He also believed that government involvement in private property is a way of demolishing the natural right to property. The most convincing theory In my opinion, John Locke’s philosophy is the most convincing philosophy because it lays the foundation for human rights law (Moeckli, Shah, Sivakumaran & Harris 2013:15). In modern society, most of the political systems and government constitutions are based on the philosophy that people are subject to natural law. The aspect of morality is based on duty whereby every person has to observe the natural law. This is witnessed by the occurrence of English revolution that affected the concepts on natural rights, law and natural law (Shelton 2013:184). Locke argues that people are entitled to freedom of conscience and religion and emphasized that people had particular natural rights before the initiation of any structured society. This is evident from his suggestion that every person possess a right to an ideal freedom and unrestricted pleasure of all privileges and rights of the law of nature in the same way as any individual or individuals in the universe. Every person has the ability to maintain his life, estate and liberty from attempts and injuries from other people and has the power to decide and discipline those who break the law (Shelton 2013:184). This initiated the practice of individuals creating societies and raising governments for the purpose of protecting their rights, but not to give up on them. The government, therefore, gets into power through election by the citizens. The people have the liberty to protest if the government fails to protect their property. It is my view that this argument opens the door for democracy where people have a right to hold their government accountable. This right is obtained through holding elections to select their leaders. In countries where leaders result in dictator way of ruling the citizens hold demonstrations to express their grievances. If the government chose to ignore the public in some countries, it has led to relinquishing of power by the head of state. A perfect example is Egypt where the citizens were against the ruling of President Hosni Mubarak, who ruled the country for almost thirty years. These people lacked democracy and socio-economic progress that was limited by the authoritarian government. The citizens looked at the government as a threat to the country’s future. They felt the governance failed to protect the rights of the people and instead was using their power to protect the people in the government (El-Tonsi 2013: para7). The citizens were fed up with the political repression and the increasing state of poverty in the country. This was after President’s Mubarak attempt to hand over power to his son Gamal. The state police who were supposed to protect the citizens turned against them and resulted to torture and killings. People who wanted to disclose the government corruption were assassinated, and the basic commodities prices increased (Teti & Gervasio 2011: para 2). The people had a feeling that they were not given equal rights because only the politically connected people were given the opportunities to run the country’s economy. Most of the young people in the country were jobless and lived under $2 per day. This resulted to people protesting against the high prices of flour that increased the cost of bread (Teti & Gervasio 2011: para 2). This is a clear demonstration of what transpires when the government fails to safeguard the inherent rights of its citizens (Corning 2011:60). According to Locke, personal rights are not absolute and should not inhibit the rights of others. The case of Egypt proves that Locke is right in his argument that the government is not a necessity, but a convenience; therefore, the people can negotiate the conditions of governance. It also confirms that people do not surrender their power to the government but rather delegate the reciprocal maintenance of their lives, liberties and estates (Lawhead 2014:312). It is also true that poverty is not a misfortune, but a signal of failure of morals from the part of the government as written by Locke. He proposed that unemployment was as a result of discipline negligence, and corruption of behaviours and the initiative for creating employment should be the shutting down of unwanted alcohol joints (Wronka 1998:66). Human rights The two treatises of government propelled human rights movements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was embraced by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 as well as the International Covenants on Human Rights on the date of 16 December 1966. From the universal domain it is manifested through the American Declaration of Independence that took place on 4 July 1776 and on 26 August 1789 by the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Przetacznik 2009:para 1). The bill of rights in England was culminated by the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of the English Civil War. The document formed the foundation for sovereignty of parliament. This bill of rights was a source of some defined rights such as all people were not supposed to be subjected to unusual or cruel punishments. This led to the abolishment of torture from the England legal system in 1641 and the Corpus Act of 1679. From my view the bill of rights brought human liberty progress and showed the importance of extreme state power should be restricted for the sake of its citizen (Moeckli, Shah, Sivakumaran & Harris 2013:17). The concept of human rights is employed to check the use of government absolute power in situations of moral diversity and religious. In contemporary society, the human rights deals with local and international concerns. It includes the human rights of international doctrine and the protection of personal freedom against violation by the government that is vital for a dignified existence of individuals (Beitz 2011:57). The international human rights look into the minimal legal system; engage in global economic and cultural life and in the economy that consist of the kind of the least wage labour for particular workers. They also participate in public institutional ability to increase income and give important collective goods. The human rights are organisations of contemporary society that are organised as a political realm that exists in global political resources where people are faced with foreseen warnings. The human rights ideologies are dynamic because the range of threats changes, as well as the technological, social and economic settings (Beitz 2011:58). The Western countries are in the front line in international associations of human rights in the world events. This is clear from the war against slavery and slave trade, acting on behalf of the way injured, aliens and safeguarding of industrialised labour (Forsythe 2012:33). Most of their ideologies focus on injured people and look for legal changes in the public system. Figures that can be identified with the international human rights include Even Marxism, who was concerned with industrialised worker subjected to primitive capitalism. Henry Dunant focused on war victims and pioneered Red Cross and also was involved with the fight against Africa slave trade and slavery (Forsythe 2012:33). There was surfacing of private groups for example the Anti-Slavery Society in London that later became the International Committee of Red Cross in Geneva that forced western countries to embrace agreements compelling the governments to rectify injustices (Forsythe 2012:34). President Roosevelt proposed the international code of human rights that included freedom of religion, speech, from fear and wants. The United Nations was required to embrace economic and social systems to manage the national situations that resulted to militant governments and dictatorship. International Human rights consist of the right to enough clothing, shelter, food, health care, rights of political engagement and civic freedom (Forsythe 2012:38). Currently, the United Nation (UN) human rights focuses on foreign policy and international associations in regards to human rights of people of individual countries (Fortman 2011: para 1). The United Nation focuses on two types of human rights defensive and offensive human rights. In offensive human rights, it is concerned with the breaking of the law by other states. The UN comes up with ways of condemning the opponent country. However, defensive human rights is the process of signing and endorsing the agreement and integrating human rights quality in the states national constitution for reference in case of states human rights violation (Fortman 2011:para 2). In modern society the human rights are described as the powers that an individual possess because is a person and due to the fact that he/she qualifies to call for and hold rights in any situation that there is a need. Human rights are recognised universally by all people, and there is no difference of those who qualify to practice and get their rights. With this in mind, the rights of people are ranked above any other legal, political, and moral declarations because they are implemented to the entire humanity and are viewed as the greatest security of human integrity. The human rights are the foundation of human society in connection to ‘right bearers’ or governments (What are human rights and how do they function: para 1). How the human rights perform their role in modern society In the view of how human rights perform their duties and the concept of rights, there is a distinction between rectitude and entitlement. The idea of rectitude is the claim that something is wrong. Such claims are the basis of particular level or belief of behaviour that the right bearer draws attention to and both the right bearer and right holder are mandated to uphold the standard of behaviour. If one of the two does not conform to the standard of behaviour the right bearer has the power to remove the right from the right holder. Consequently, the right holder has the authority to practice the right if the right bearer does not warrant it. The concept of entitlement is founded on the notion that ‘an individual has the right to something’ and is, therefore, related to the right holder. Complaints from either the right holder or the right bearer permit a right system to operate. This is because the right holder is entitled to exercise her or his right and the pleasure is demonstrated when there is a standard of conduct in regard to the right bearer (Orend 2002: 37). In todays world, the rights basically are an element of empowerment that does not benefit the right holder alone. The objective of rights is for all people to benefit from them; irrespective of their position. In cases where rights are denied the people are not empowered and hence they are not entitled to enjoy the benefits. In addition, possessing a right does not imply that one has a right to everything that is good but rights exist to prevent injustices from occurring (Orend 2002: 38). This implies that when injustices happen that is the only time human rights are exercised. This proves that human rights are necessary for human moral nature. It the nature of human beings to want to be managed with dignity thus, enables people to live a respected life. The human rights guarantee this respect because entitlement to the right means that people’s lives will change for better in one way, or another. It is from this perspective that the human rights function and operate. This is because they are an inert result of human moral nature and safeguard this moral nature is vital. Conclusion To sum this up, this paper has explored the argument by John Locke that people are born with inherent rights. According to the research carried out in this paper, it is evident that people are entitled to these rights that exist naturally. It is also clear that when people’s rights are not respected there is war between the government and its citizens. The reason people institute a government is to have their properties safeguarded. In this case property refers to life, liberty and estate. When the government does not fulfil this obligation, the populace is at liberty to terminate it. This is described in the case of Egypt where President Mubarak attempted to hand over power to his son that would imply that the oppression that the citizens faced would have continued. The people had had enough with the state of governance and looked for ways to bring down the government. This served as a clear sign that the power rests in people because President Mubarak was forced to give up the reign. This is in agreement with what Locke stated that people in power govern under law and if not they lose their moral to rule. Hence, if the government fails to perform according to the agreement on which it is established; which is to safeguard property, life and liberty, the citizens have a right to terminate it. The paper explores on how the human rights are exercised in the world. It gives a succinate detail of how it began and how it operates today. It shows the role and functions of human rights. The concept of human rights is about entitlement to rights where there are two parties the right bearer and the right holder. The two must act according to the moral standard established. If either breaks any of the standards, they have equal rights to act. Both the right holder and the right bearer have the responsibility to protect the moral nature. Indeed ‘human beings are born with natural rights to property, life and liberty, and they institute the state to protect these rights’. Bibliography BEITZ, C. R. (2011). The idea of human rights. Oxford University Press. BHUIYAN, S. I. (2011). Social media and its effectiveness in the political reform movement in Egypt. Middle East Media Educator, 1(1), 14-20. CORNING, P. (2011). The fair society: The science of human nature and the pursuit of social justice. University of Chicago Press. EL-TONSI, A. (2013, August 29). Why did the Egyptians revolt? Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/3902/17/Why-did-the-Egyptians-revolt-.aspx FORTMAN. (2011, July 30). Human Rights in the Context of International Relations. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from http://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/30/human-rights-in-the-context-of-international-relations-a-critical-appraisal/ LOCKE, J., & LOCKE, J. (2005). Two treatises of government; and, A letter concerning toleration. Stilwell, KS, Digireads.com pub. LAWHEAD, W. (2014). Cengage Advantage Series: Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Cengage Learning. MOECKLI, D., SHAH, S., SIVAKUMARAN, S., & HARRIS, D. (Eds.). (2013). International human rights law. Oxford University Press. OREND, B. (2002). Human rights: concept and context. Peterborough, Ont, Broadview Press. PERRY, M., CHASE, M., JACOB, J., JACOB, M., & VON LAUE, T. (2012). Western Civilization: Since 1400. Cengage Learning. PRZETACZNIK, F. (2009, May 21). Netherlands International Law Review. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=onlineHYPERLINK "http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4973396"&HYPERLINK "http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4973396"aid=4973396 SHELTON, D. (ED.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law. Oxford University Press. TETI, A., & GERVASIO, G. (2011, January 1). Egypts Second January Uprising: Causes and Consequences of a Would-be Revolution. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www.academia.edu/2030671/Egypts_Second_January_Uprising_Causes_and_Consequences_of_a_Would-be_Revolution WEATHERLEY, R. (2014). Making China Strong: The Role of Nationalism in Chinese Thinking on Democracy and Human Rights. Palgrave Macmillan. Read More